DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-178 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX   

FINAL DECISION 

This proceeding was conducted according to the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and 
section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed the case after receiving the 
completed  application  on  June  25,  2009,  and  assigned  it  to  staff  member  J.  Andrews  to  pre-
pare the decision for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  March  11,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

 

 
 

 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 
 
The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  remove  an  Administrative  Remarks  form  CG-3307 
(“Page 7”) dated November 19, 2007, from his record and to order the Coast Guard to appoint 
him to chief warrant officer (CWO) on June 1, 2010, as if he had been selected for appointment 
to CWO2 by the CWO appointment board that convened in April 2009. 
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS AND EVIDENCE 

 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  on  October  24,  2007,  a  colleague,  YN2  X,  placed  him  on 
report on a charge of having an inappropriate relationship with YN2 X’s wife.  Because YN2 X 
also  broke  into  his  house  twice,  the  applicant  got  a  civil  restraining  order  against YN2  X  on 
November 13, 2007.  After the command investigated YN2 X’s allegations and misconduct, the 
District Chief of Staff gave the applicant an order not to contact YN2 X’s wife and gave YN2 X 
an  order  not  to  contact  the  applicant.    The  applicant  alleged  that  the  no-contact  order  is  not 
evidence that he had an inappropriate relationship with YN2 X’s wife; it was only intended to 
“diffus[e] a rapidly escalating situation and avoid[] further aggressions by YN2 [X].”  The no-
contact order, dated November 14, 2007, states that it concerns the applicant’s  
 

association and contact with [YN2 X’s wife].  The nature and consequences of your association 
with [her] to date reflects poorly on you and has the potential to bring discredit upon the Coast 
Guard.  I am issuing this administrative order for the following reasons: 

a.  To avoid a breach of the peace and respect the wishes of [YN2 X] that you not have any con-

tact whatsoever with his lawful wife.; 

b.  To  protect  the  reputation  of  the  Coast  Guard  and  to  maintain  good  relations  between  our 

armed service and the xxxxx community; [and] 

c.  To protect you from further allegations of adultery and misconduct. 

 
The no-contact order stated that it would “remain in effect until July 31, 2010 unless sooner can-
celed by me or by higher authority or until a formal decree of divorce is issued by a court of 
competent jurisdiction to [YN2 X and his wife].” 
 

In  addition,  on  November  19,  2007,  both  the  applicant  and YN2  X  received  negative 
Page 7s.  YN2 X’s Page 7 documented his involvement in an “alcohol incident.”  The Page 7 that 
was issued to the applicant but is no longer in his record stated the following: 
 

Entry Type:  Performance and Discipline (P&D-7) 
Reference:  10 USC 934, Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice [1] 
Responsible Level:  Unit 
Entry:  (General—Negative) 
 
19 NOV 2007:  You were formally counseled on 15 NOV 07 as a result of a standard investigation 
into allegations that you engaged in an inappropriate relationship with the spouse of another Coast 
Guard member.  I have determined that your association with the spouse of that co-worker was 
prejudicial to good order and discipline and has had a measurably divisive effect on the morale 
and cohesion of this command. 
 
I issued you a no contact order on 15 NOV 07 in which I ordered you not to have any further con-
tact with the spouse of the Coast Guard member that was the subject of the investigation.  This 
order will remain in place for the remainder of your tour of duty on the Xth CG District staff, or 
unless sooner rescinded by me.  Any further contact or association with the spouse of this Coast 
Guard member could result in non-judicial punishment and/or other adverse administrative action. 

 
 
The applicant stated that on November 26, 2007, he requested a mast with the District 
Chief of Staff to protest this Page 7.  He gave the Chief of Staff his own oral and written descrip-
tions of the facts and informed the Chief of Staff that he had called the police twice “to report 
breaking and entering” by YN2 X.  The applicant stated that he later received a restraining order 
against YN2 X through the xxxxxn Circuit Court.  The applicant argued that these actions show 
that he “was not attempting to engage in or conceal an alleged affair.”   
 
Applicant’s Written Statements to the Chief of Staff 
 

The applicant submitted two unsigned statements, which he apparently submitted to the 
Chief of Staff after receiving the original Page 7 dated November 19, 2007.  The first contains 
his allegations about his experiences with YN2 X and his wife.  In it, the applicant wrote that he 
and  YN2  X  worked  together  closely,  often  traveled  together  for  work,  and  were  very  close 
friends who babysat and dog-sat for each other.  About six months previously, YN2 X had told 
him  that  his  wife  had  filed  for  divorce.    Thereafter,  the  applicant  “had  several  separate 

                                                 
1 Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), codified at 10 U.S.C. § 934. prohibits “all disorders 
and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline” and “all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the 
armed forces,” including adultery. 

conversations with [YN2 X] and with [his wife].  Both had confided in me with details of their 
separation and the events that led up to it.  [The wife] had confided in me to a greater extend than 
[YN2 X].”  When YN2 X’s wife asked him how his own ex-wife and children had returned home 
from xxxxx after his divorce, he “told her about the Early Return of Dependents policy.”  He also 
told YN2 X about the policy and discussed likely asset reallocation with him.   
 

The applicant wrote that he “tried to remain a neutral party” but sometimes he “would 
share  information  from  each  other’s  conversations  with  the  other.”    In  early  September,  [the 
wife]  came  to  the  applicant’s  house  “distraught  and  in  tears”  so  he  invited  her  in. When  [the 
wife]  complained  to  him  that  YN2  X  was  only  paying  for  their  son’s  daycare,  the  applicant 
informed them both that YN2 X was legally required to pay a portion of his basic pay, COLA, 
and BAH to her while they were separated.”  In addition, the wife asked if she could rent his 
spare room because she could not afford an apartment.  He refused because she was still married 
to YN2 X.  The applicant alleged that, as soon as she left, he called YN2 X and told him what 
had happened.  The applicant told YN2 X that he needed to support his dependents and that his 
wife’s visit and questions had made him feel awkward because he “did  not want to be in the 
middle of their mess.”  He advised YN2 X to get help from the Employee Assistance Program.   

 
On October 12, 2007, the applicant stated, YN2 X’s wife came to his house and woke 
him up sometime between 0200 and 0230.  She appeared intoxicated and distraught.  She told 
him that YN2 X had been sending her hundreds of “very disturbing text messages and phone 
messages” and asked him if he thought YN2 X had been acting rationally.  He spoke with her for 
15 to 20 minutes, promised to speak to YN2 X, and let her sleep in his spare room, where he set 
up a makeshift bed for her with a pillow and comforters, because she was not fit to drive.  Then 
he went back to sleep.  However, at about 0430, he awoke to find YN2 X screaming at his wife 
in Russian in the bathroom.  YN2 X saw the applicant and grabbed him.  The applicant pushed 
him  away  and  went  downstairs,  where  he  found  his  front  door  and  door  jamb  destroyed.  
Therefore, he called the police to report the crime.  YN2 X came downstairs, accused him of 
sleeping with his wife, and fled.  The police came and told him they had apprehended YN2 X, 
but he refused to press charges because the wife asked him not to. 

 
The  applicant  alleged  that  YN2  X’s  wife  was  never  in  his  bedroom  and  was  never 
unclothed in his home.  He alleged that YN2 X saw the makeshift bed that the applicant had cre-
ated for his wife on the night of October 12, 2007.  The next day, YN2 X called him and apolo-
gized.  The applicant “chewed him a new one”; told him he was not welcome at the applicant’s 
house any more; told him that he would have gone to jail if his wife had not begged the applicant 
not  to  press  charges;  and  told  him  he  “needed  serious  help.”    The  applicant  “ordered  him  to 
report to Worklife first thing Monday morning and get enrolled in EAP.”  On Tuesday, the appli-
cant told him that he had spoken to CAPT C, who had said that “we could work it out.”   

 
On Friday, October 19, 2007, the applicant alleged, YN2 X came to his house ostensibly 
to hang out and make peace.  However, he actually borrowed the applicant’s computer on a pre-
tense  and  installed  a  “subsystem  monitoring  spyware  program.”    The  applicant  assumed  that 
YN2 X was hoping to find evidence that the applicant was having an affair with his wife.   

 

On Sunday, the applicant wrote, he came home from a short trip to xxxxxxx and cleaned 
out his garage so that he could park his car inside for the first time.  Later that night, he awoke 
when his dog started barking.  Downstairs, he found YN2 X looking through his papers and talk-
ing on the telephone.  YN2 X, who smelled of alcohol, dropped the phone and ran out of the 
house, and the applicant called the police.  While he was on the phone with the police, YN2 X 
came back into the house and told him that it was a joke.  The applicant told him to leave, and 
YN2 X left.  The applicant stated that he believes that YN2 X thought he was not home because 
his car was not parked in the driveway as usual.  The applicant called the command and told 
CAPT C that YN2 X had broken into his house for a second time.  He learned that YN2 X had 
never spoken to CAPT C about the first incident, as he had claimed.  When the police arrived, 
the applicant agreed to press charges.  YN2 X was also charged with driving while intoxicated as 
his blood alcohol content measured 0.13.   

 
The applicant wrote that his relationship with YN2 X’s wife “has always been a concilia-
tory one where I would share my advice and experiences whenever she would ask me.  It was 
also  an  emphatic  [empathetic?]  one  where  we  have  both  been  down  the  same  road  and  gone 
through the same situation and shared these experiences with each other.”   He concluded that 
YN2 X was likely alcohol dependent and bipolar and needed psychological evaluation and coun-
seling.    He  suggested  that YN2  X  had  brought  his  trouble  on  himself  by  refusing  to  sign  an 
uncontested divorce decree as his wife had requested because, if he had, his wife and son would 
no longer be living in XXX. 
 
In his second statement, which is a request for a “request mast”2 with the Chief of Staff to 
 
discuss the original Page 7 dated November 19, 2007, the applicant alleged that the Page 7 had 
“inflicted  massive  damage  to  my  credibility  and  integrity  and  caused  severe  doubts  about  my 
loyalty among my co-workers and superiors.”  He argued that the Page 7 had assigned guilt and 
punishment without due process because he had never been taken to mast (non-judicial punish-
ment under Article 15 of the UCMJ) where he would have had the opportunity to defend himself.  
He admitted, however, that he did not actually want to go to mast.  He wrote that his “silence in 
and  during  the  investigation  was  by  no  means  an  admission  of  guilt,  but  rather  reflected  my 
introvert personality and reclusive private life,” and that he had abided by the no-contact order 
“to the detriment of my friendships.”  He asked the CO to expunge the Page 7 his record. 
 
Final Action on the Administrative Investigation 
 
 
On December 31, 2007, CAPT N took final action on the investigation.  The summary of 
the facts states that in October 2007, YN2 X began to suspect that his wife was having an affair 
with the applicant because of a “lack of marital consortium” and her “growing interest in pro-
vocative lingerie.”  In addition, his wife “had begun to use amorous euphemisms for [the appli-
cant] as her computer password and ‘logons.’”  On the night of Friday, October 12, 2007, YN2 
X’s wife told him she would be spending the night at a girlfriend’s house.  Late that night, after 
consuming alcohol, YN2 X left his son with a friend and went looking for his wife.  She was not 
at the girlfriend’s house; instead, he found her car in front of the applicant’s house.  At about 
0330, he kicked in the applicant’s front door and found his wife in an upstairs bathroom trying to 
                                                 
2 Under Article 9-2-3 of Coast Guard Regulations and Article 14.B.2.a. of the Personnel Manual, members may seek 
a “request mast” with their CO to appeal receipt of a Page 7.  

arrange her hair while the applicant was making the bed in the master bedroom..  His wife had a 
discoloration on her upper lip.  She denied doing anything wrong, but YN2 X began shouting at 
both of them.  The applicant called the police, and YN2 X left.  The applicant did not file a com-
plaint.  YN2 X was stopped by police who spoke with him about his suspicions that his wife and 
the applicant were having an affair.  The police let him go with a warning not to drink and drive. 
 
 
On Sunday night, October 21, 2007, YN2 X again drank alcohol and drove to the appli-
cant’s home.  He entered the house through an unlocked door, but the applicant found him and 
told him to leave.  The applicant called the police.  When the police interviewed the applicant, 
they “found him evasive” and were convinced that the applicant “was lying to him.”  The police 
believed  that  the  incidents  resulted  from  a  “love  triangle  gone  bad.”   YN2  X  admitted  to  the 
police that he had been at the applicant’s house and was intoxicated.  YN2 X claimed that he had 
gone  into  the  house  to  play  a  joke,  but  he  was  charged  with  criminal  trespass  and  DUI.    On 
December 18, 2007, the trespass charge was dismissed but he pled guilty to DUI. 
 
 
CAPT N found that “each of the subjects and witnesses interviewed during the course of 
the investigation were less than forthcoming.”  He concluded that YN2 X had shown very poor 
judgment  and  incurred  an  “alcohol  incident”  and  that  the  applicant  had  an  “unduly  familiar 
relationship” with YN2 X’s wife, which was “of a nature to bring discredit upon the Coast Guard 
and  was  a  significant  contributing  factor  in  triggering  [YN2  X’s]  misconduct.”   Among  other 
actions, CAPT N stated that the applicant should be given an order to cease contact with YN2 
X’s  wife  and  be  issued  a  Page  7  “documenting  his  counseling  regarding  the  inappropriate 
relationship  with  [the  wife].”    He  also  found  that  the  charge  against  the  applicant  should  be 
dismissed. 
 
Disputed Page 7 
 
 
On January 3, 2008, CAPT N sent the applicant an email stating that he had considered 
their discussions and was willing to revise the Page 7 dated November 19, 2007.  On January 16, 
2008, CAPT N sent the Personnel Command a memorandum asking that the Page 7 be replaced 
with another.  He noted that the “overall basic content and intent is essentially the same between 
the two CG-3307s; however, the entry type is different and updated.”  The replacement Page 7, 
which the applicant wants the Board to remove, appears in his record as follows: 
 

Entry Type:  Performance and Discipline (P&D-12) 
Reference:  Article 8-H-6c, Personnel Manual COMDTINST M1000.6 (SERIES) [3] 
Responsibility Level:  Unit 
Entry:   
 
19 NOV  :  You were formally counseled on 15 NOV 07 as a result of a standard investigation into 
allegations  that  you  engaged  in  an  inappropriate  relationship  with  the  spouse  of  another  Coast 
Guard member.  As a result of that investigation, I have issued you a no contact order in which I 
ordered you not to have any further contact with the spouse of the Coast Guard member who was 
the primary subject of the investigation.  This order will remain in place for the remainder of your 
tour of duty on the Xth CG District Staff, or until a formal decree of divorce is issued by a court of 
competent jurisdiction, or unless sooner rescinded by me.  Any further contact or association with 

                                                 
3 Article 8.H.6.c. of the Personnel Manual authorizes formal or informal counseling about relationships of concern  
and documentation of such counseling on a Page 7 or an Administrative Letter of Censure. 

the spouse of this Coast Guard member could result in disciplinary action under the UCMJ and/or 
other adverse administrative action. 

 
CWO Appointment Boards 4 
 
 
On March 7, 2008, CAPT N signed an evaluation report endorsing the applicant’s bid for 
appointment to CWO.  The report contains many  highly laudatory  comments about the appli-
cant’s performance and strongly recommends him for selection.  The applicant was selected for 
appointment by the 2008 CWO appointment board, and his name appears as #27 out of the 40 
yeomen  found  to  be  fully  qualified  for  appointment  to  CWO  in  the  Personnel Administration 
specialty.  However, his name is not “above the cut” for a guaranteed appointment.  This list is in 
effect from June 1, 2009, through May 31, 2010, and the cutoff for advancement is #19.  
 

On March 6, 2009, CAPT N signed another highly laudatory draft report to support the 
applicant in his bid for appointment to CWO.  However, on April 28, 2009, the Acting Com-
mander  of  the  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Service  Center  (CGPSC)  informed  the  applicant  in  a 
memorandum that the CWO appointment board that convened on April 14, 2009,  

 
did not include your name as one of the candidates recommended for appointment.  The Board 
elected to remove you from consideration under the provision of [Article 1.D.8.e. of the Personnel 
Manual].  The following excerpt from the Board Report sets forth the specific reason:   

“[The applicant] was found not fully qualified for appointment to CWO2 due to documentation in 
the record regarding an inappropriate relationship which the board by at least two-thirds majority 
determined  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  definition  of  a  chief  warrant  officer  found  in  Section 
1.D.1.a. of the Coast Guard Personnel Manual …[and the board’s own precept].” 

 

 

The applicant alleged that the 2009 CWO appointment board clearly misinterpreted the 
Page 7 as evidence of an inappropriate relationship when, in fact, it only refers to allegations of 
one and he was “proven innocent” of the charge.  The CWO appointment eligibility list resulting 

                                                 
4 Article 1.D.1.a. of the Personnel Manual states that “CWOs are mature individuals with appropriate education and 
specialty experience who have shown through demonstrated initiative and past performance they have the potential 
to assume positions of greater responsibility requiring broader conceptual, management and leadership skills.”  The 
procedures of a CWO appointment board appear in Article 1.D.8. of the Personnel Manual.  Each board consists of 
at least five officers, who review the candidates’ records.  Under Article 1.D.8.e.,  

1.  The  Board  must  first  determine,  by  specialty,  if  all  primary  candidates  are  fully  qualified  to 
become chief warrant officers based on the information furnished in subparagraph d. above and 
the  professional  judgment  of  the  Board  members.    After  making  this  determination,  the  Board 
must then rank order the primary candidates on a best-qualified basis. 
2.  The  Board  shall  not  recommend  candidates  for  appointment  whose  personal  conduct  and 
associations are such that reasonable grounds exist for rejection on the basis of loyalty.  Although 
a candidate may have been considered as meeting the minimum requirements, the Board may find 
trends or patterns of conduct, indebtedness, performance, or behavior which it considers disquali-
fying and therefore may find the candidate not fully qualified for appointment. 
3. The Board will submit a report of those recommended for appointment in each specialty to the 
Secretary of Transportation [sic] (the Secretary) for appointment authority. 

Article 1.D.8.f.1. states that the Board’s report shall include the list of those selected and, “[i]f the Board does not 
recommend a candidate for appointment, the reasons therefore shall be indicated in the Board Report.” 

from the April 2009 board will be in effect from June 1, 2010, through May 31, 2011.  The appli-
cant’s name is not on this list. 
 
 
On  May  14,  2009,  a  senior  chief  petty  officer  contacted  the  Personnel  Service  Center 
(PSC) on the applicant’s behalf.  He stated that the Page 7 was generated on an allegation of an 
inappropriate relationship, which was investigated and dismissed.  Therefore, the letter came as a 
shock to the member.  He noted that the applicant was #27 on the prior CWO list and asked if the 
applicant would be removed from that list. 
 
 
On May 17, 2009, the Chief of the Boards Section at PSC responded and stated that any-
one applying for appointment to CWO is responsible for the content of his record.  He stated that 
the  applicant’s  name  would  not  be  removed  from  the  prior  list  and  that  he  could  reapply  for 
appointment the following year.  He also stated that “each Board, comprised of different mem-
bers each year, is charged with best meeting the needs of the service as defined by the current 
year Commandant’s Guidance to Boards and Panels, the Precept, and the PERSMAN.” 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On November 26, 2009, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 

 
 
an advisory opinion in which he recommended that the Board deny relief in this case.   
 
 
The JAG stated that the applicant has “failed to prove his Supervisor/Commanding Offi-
cer acted contrary to CG policy in his decision to issue the applicant an administrative Page 7 
entry based on the findings of an administrative investigation.”  The JAG noted that absent evi-
dence to the contrary, the applicant’s command is presumed to have prepared the disputed Page 7 
correctly and that the applicant bears the burden of proving that it is erroneous or unjust.  The 
JAG stated that CAPT N, the District Chief of Staff, prepared the Page 7 to document counseling 
about an inappropriate relationship and slightly modified the Page 7 on January 16, 2008, follow-
ing the completion of the administrative investigation.  The JAG stated that the disputed Page 7 
“was issued to accurately document the applicant’s involvement in an inappropriate relationship 
IAW Article 8.H.6.c.” of the Personnel Manual, and that the applicant has not proved that the 
Page 7 is legally or factually erroneous. 
 
 
The JAG argued that the applicant has failed to prove that the action of the 2009 CWO 
appointment board in finding him not qualified for appointment was erroneous or unjust under 
Article 1.D.8.e.2. of the Personnel Manual.5  The JAG alleged that the board acted pursuant to 
policy and noted that such action requires a determination by two-thirds of the membership of 
the board that he was not fully qualified for appointment to CWO.  The applicant “is in no posi-
tion to ‘second guess’ the findings and actions of appointment boards” and “is not entitled to cir-
cumvent the CG’s appointment procedures by alleging the board misinterpreted a Page 7 entry.”  
The JAG stated that the applicant “failed to provide any evidence which would expose the appli-
cant’s chain of command’s actions or the appointment board’s action as unjust or unwarranted.”  
 
The  JAG  attached  to  the  advisory  opinion  memorandum  on  the  case  prepared  by  the 
 
Personnel Service Center (PSC), which recommended that the Board deny relief.  PSC stated that 
                                                 
5 See footnote 3, above. 

CAPT N’s final action on the investigation shows that he concluded that the applicant should be 
counseled on a Page 7 regarding his inappropriate relationship with YN2 X’s wife.  PSC com-
plied with CAPT N’s request dated January 16, 2008, to replace the original Page 7 with the dis-
puted  Page  7  was  followed.    PSC  stated  that  the  applicant’s  claim  that  the  Page  7  should  be 
removed because CAPT N dismissed the UCMJ charge against him is incorrect because the Page 
7 is accurate and properly documents the applicant’s counseling. 
 
PSC further stated that a board’s selection of candidates for appointment to CWO “is both 
 
an objective investigation as well as a subjective determination regarding the applicant’s suitabil-
ity.  The dynamics of one board compared to the dynamics of another board are historically and 
purposefully different.  The Coast Guard cannot speculate as to why one board considered the 
applicant despite the subject Page 7 while another board immediately ruled against the applicant.  
This, in essence, is the application process.” 

 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On November 30, 2009, the applicant responded to the views of the Coast Guard.  He 
stated that the allegation that he was counseled about an inappropriate relationship “could not be 
further from the truth.”  He stated that the Page 7 shows that he was counseled about mere alle-
gations  of  an  inappropriate  relationship;  that  the  investigation  found  that  the  allegations  were 
false; and that CAPT N therefore dismissed the charge and endorsed his candidacy for CWO.   
 
 
The applicant argued that the misinterpretation of the Page 7 by PSC and the JAG proves 
his  claim  that  the  2009  CWO  appointment  board  misinterpreted  the  Page  7.    He  alleged  that 
CAPT N’s actions in dismissing the charge, modifying the Page 7 to remove punitive language, 
and strongly endorsing him for appointment to CWO show that CAPT N did not draw the con-
clusions assumed by the appointment board, the JAG, and PSC.  He alleged that he had been 
“proven innocent.”  Therefore, the Page 7 should be expunged because its repeated misinterpre-
tation and harm to his career shock the sense of justice, and he should be appointed to CWO as if 
he had been above the cut for guaranteed appointment on the appointment eligibility list resulting 
from the CWO appointment board that convened in April 2009. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 

Article 8 of the Personnel Manual concerns military discipline and 8.H. concerns frater-
nization and unacceptable and inappropriate relationships among Coast Guard members.  Article 
8.H.6.c. authorizes documentation of formal counseling about relationships as follows: 

 
Early  counseling  often  can  resolve  potential  concerns  about  the  characteristics  of  a  relationship 
and appropriate actions to ensure the relationship develops in a  manner consistent  with Service 
custom.  Counseling may be informal or more formal, including written documentation by Admin-
istrative Remarks, Form  CG-3307 or an Administrative Letter of Censure ([see] Article 8.E.4.).  
Counseling may include a direct order to terminate a relationship. 

Enclosure (6) to the Pay and Personnel Procedures Manual (PPPM) provides instructions 

 
 
for preparing Page 7 and states that they “are broken down into the following ‘types’”: 
 

a. Accession (ACC-#) 
b. Assignment and Transfer (A&T-#) 
c. Advancement and Reduction (A&R-#) 
d. Performance and Discipline (P&D-#) 

Note: Includes indebtedness, non-support of dependents, general (positive/negative), evalua-
tions, good conduct eligibility, and weight 

e. Separation (SEP-#) 
f. Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB-#) 
g. Selective Reserve (SELRES) Enlisted Bonus Programs (BON-#) 

 
 
CAPT N in creating Page 7s for the applicant’s record: 
 

Enclosure (6) also provides examples for each type of Page 7, including those used by 

Entry-Type: Performance and Discipline (P&D-7) 
Reference: None 
Responsible Level: Unit 
Entry: (General - negative)   
 
(DATE): Petty Officer Jones was counseled for ……………………… 
(NOTE: Entry must be member specific and describe who, what, when, where, 
why  and  how.    Blanket  entries  describing  generalities,  which  are  photocopied 
for inclusion in many members’ PDRs, are not authorized.) 
 
 
 

A. B. SEA, CAPT, USCG 
Commanding Officer 

 
(DATE): I acknowledge the above entry. 
 
 

J. P. JONES 

 

Entry Type: Performance and Discipline (P&D-12) 
Reference: Article 8-H-5b(2), Personnel Manual, COMDTINST M1000.6 (series) 
Responsible Level: Unit 
Entry: 
 
(DATE): (document formal counseling pertaining to improper relationships) 
 
 
 

A. B. SEA, CAPT, USCG 
Commanding Officer 

 
(DATE): I acknowledge the above entry. 

 

 

 

J. P. JONES 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant’s 

 
 
military record and submissions, the Coast Guard’s submissions, and applicable law: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  

1. 

The application was timely. 
 

2. 

The applicant asked to be appointed to CWO on June 1, 2010, because the 2009 
CWO appointment board found him unqualified for appointment because, he alleged, they mis-
interpreted the Page 7 in his record dated November 19, 2007.  He further alleged that the Page 7 
is unjust because it is easily misinterpreted, and he asked the Board to remove it from his record.  
The Board begins its analysis in every case by presuming that the disputed information in the 
applicant’s military record is correct as it appears in his record, and the applicant bears the bur-
den of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed information is erroneous or 
unjust.6    Absent  evidence  to  the  contrary,  the  Board  presumes  that  Coast  Guard  officials  and 
other  Government  employees  have  carried  out  their  duties  “correctly,  lawfully,  and  in  good 
faith.”7  
 
3. 

The disputed Page 7 was placed in the applicant’s record by the District Chief of 
Staff in accordance with Article 8.H.6.c. of the Personnel Manual.  That article authorizes prepa-
ration of a Page 7 to document counseling needed to “resolve potential concerns about the char-
acteristics  of  a  relationship  and  appropriate  actions  to  ensure  the  relationship  develops  in  a 
manner consistent with Service custom.”  Enclosure (6) of the Personnel Manual also expressly 
authorizes  Page  7s  denoted  as  “P&D–12”  to  “document  formal  counseling  pertaining  to 
improper relationships.”  The Board concludes that the disputed Page 7 was authorized by regu-
lation, and the applicant has not proved that it contains any factual error.   

 
4. 

The text of the original Page 7 dated November 19, 2007, proves that the appli-
cant was in fact counseled about an inappropriate relationship on November 15, 2007, as a result 
of the findings of the investigation.  In taking final action on the investigation on December 31, 
2007,  CAPT  N  stated  that  the  applicant  had  an  “unduly  familiar  relationship”  with  YN2  X’s 
wife, which was “of a nature to bring discredit upon the Coast Guard and was a significant con-
tributing factor in triggering [YN2 X’s] misconduct.”  The fact that CAPT N chose to dismiss 
YN2 X’s charges against the applicant does not negate the finding in the investigation that the 
applicant had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a fellow yeoman’s wife.  CAPT N 
and the investigator apparently found some of YN2 X’s admissions to the investigator to be more 
credible than the applicant’s later claims.  In this regard, the Board notes that while the applicant 
claimed that at about 0430 on the night of October 12, 2007, he awoke to the sound of YN2 X in 
his bathroom screaming at his wife, who had been sleeping in a spare room, and later found his 
                                                 
6 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); see Docket No. 2000-194, at 35-40 (DOT BCMR, Apr. 25, 2002, approved by the Deputy 
General Counsel, May 29, 2002) (rejecting the “clear and convincing” evidence standard recommended by the Coast 
Guard and adopting the “preponderance of the evidence” standard for all cases prior to the promulgation of the latter 
standard in 2003 in 33 C.F.R.§ 52.24(b)). 
7 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 

front door kicked in and the jamb destroyed,  YN2 X  admitted that after becoming suspicious 
when his wife said she was staying at a girlfriend’s house, he found his wife’s car parked outside 
the applicant’s house, kicked in the applicant’s front door, went upstairs, and found his wife in 
the bathroom fixing her appearance while the applicant was in the bedroom making the bed. 

CAPT N responded to the applicant’s request to expunge the original Page 7 by 
revising it.  The disputed, replacement Page 7 is re-categorized as an entry under Article 8.H.6.c. 
of the Personnel Manual, rather than a more negative entry referencing the UCMJ.  In addition, 
CAPT  N  omitted  the  following  derogatory  sentence  from  the  original  Page  7:    “I  have  deter-
mined that your association with the spouse of that co-worker was prejudicial to good order and 
discipline  and  has  had  a  measurably  divisive  effect  on  the  morale  and  cohesion  of  this  com-
mand.”  The fact that CAPT N revised the Page 7 to be less derogatory, however, does not negate 
his finding on December 31, 2007, that the applicant had actually engaged in an “unduly familiar 
relationship” with YN2 X’s wife, which was “of a nature to bring discredit upon the Coast Guard 
and was a significant contributing factor in triggering [YN2 X’s] misconduct.” 

The  disputed  Page  7  was  in  the  applicant’s  record  when  he  was  considered  for 
appointment to CWO in 2008.  The 2008 CWO appointment board did not disqualify him, and 
his name appeared as #27 out of 40 yeomen on the appointment eligibility list but not above the 
cutoff for appointment.   

 
6. 

 
7. 

 
5. 

 
8. 

In the professional judgment of at least two-thirds of the 2009 CWO appointment 
Board, however, the information in the disputed Page 7 disqualified the applicant for appoint-
ment to CWO under Article 1.D.8.e. of the Personnel Manual.  The applicant alleges, therefore, 
that  CWO  selection  board  members  are  misinterpreting  the  disputed  Page  7  and  drawing  an 
erroneous conclusion that he had engaged in an inappropriate relationship.  He alleges that this 
interpretation is erroneous because the Page 7 states only that he was counseled about allegations 
of an inappropriate relationship.  The 2009 CWO appointment board’s report shows that at least 
two-thirds of the board members interpreted the disputed Page 7 and no-contact order to mean 
that the applicant had had an inappropriate relationship with the spouse of a Coast Guard mem-
ber.  Therefore, the  Board finds that,  as the  applicant alleged, some CWO appointment board 
members have interpreted the text of the disputed Page 7 as evidence of an inappropriate rela-
tionship.    However,  the applicant  has  not  proved  that  this  interpretation  is  actually  erroneous.  
CAPT N’s final action on the investigation clearly shows that he found that the applicant had 
engaged in an inappropriate relationship with another member’s wife.  Therefore, while the 2009 
CWO  appointment  board  members  may  be  assuming  that  the  allegations  about  which  the 
applicant  was  counseled  are  true,  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  in  the  record  shows  that 
their assumption is accurate. 

The applicant alleged that CAPT N’s revision of the Page 7 and strong endorse-
ment  of  his  candidacy  for  appointment  to  CWO  show  that  CAPT  N  did  not  intend  for  the 
disputed Page 7 to hinder his career by revealing CAPT N’s finding that he had engaged in an 
inappropriate relationship.  He alleged that it is therefore unjust for the Page 7 to cause the CWO 
appointment  board  to  reject  him  as  a  fully  qualified  candidate.    However,  CAPT  N  had  the 
authority to withdraw the Page 7 altogether and chose not to do so.8  Therefore, the Board cannot 
                                                 
8 Under Article 14.B.2.a. of the Personnel Manual, a member may appeal a Page 7 to his command. 

conclude that CAPT N thought that the applicant’s conduct should not be known to  and con-
sidered  by  CWO  appointment  boards.    The  preponderance  of  the  evidence  shows  that  the 
disputed Page 7 is factually accurate and is not causing CWO appointment board members to 
draw erroneous conclusions.  Those board members are required to use their best professional 
judgment in assessing each candidate, not to assess a candidate’s record as the candidate or even 
his CO want it to be assessed.  The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence 
that the 2009 CWO appointment board members failed in their duty or were mistaken about his 
conduct. 
 
9. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s requests should be denied because the Board finds no 
grounds for removing the disputed Page 7 from his record or for second-guessing the 2009 CWO 
appointment board’s determination that he was not fully qualified for appointment to CWO. 

 
 
 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 

The application of YN1 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for correction of his military 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Lillian Cheng 

 

 
 George J. Jordan 

 

 

 
 
 Paul B. Oman